| Submit your comments on this article |
| -Short Attention Span Theater- |
| The Civil War Didn't 'Settle' The Question Of State Secession |
| 2024-08-04 |
| [Stark Realities] Secessionist inclinations are on the rise in the United States, and are sure to intensify after Nov. 5 regardless of which party prevails. When that happens, you can expect the accompanying discourse will be peppered with assertions that states have no right to secede, with many declaring the question was "settled" by the Civil War. The embedded contention that legal and moral questions are rightly and permanently settled by the outcome of a mass-murder contest is absurd on its face. However, the notion is so widely and casually embraced that it invites an emphatic response. It also serves as a starting point to address other flawed forms of secession skepticism. Written by a socialist in 1892, the Pledge of Allegiance attempts to program Americans into internalizing a falsehood: that the United States is "one nation, indivisible." On that score at least, the deeply-flawed pledge isn’t working on a large number of citizens. A YouGov poll taken earlier this year found substantial slices of both major parties would support their state’s departure from the union: 29% of Republicans and 21% of Democrats. Similarly, the five states in which secessionist yearning is highest represent a mixed bag of red and blue: Alaska (36%), Texas (31%), California (29%), New York (28%) and Oklahoma (28%). While 23% of all Americans want their state to secede, 28% would be content if other states did so. |
| Posted by:Besoeker |
| #9 But Texas still retained its right to spit into five separate states if I understand this correctly. |
| Posted by: Seeking Cure For Ignorance 2024-08-04 17:16 |
| #8 Claims are like prenups. Some hold up, some don't. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2024-08-04 17:15 |
| #7 Proco - and Texas lost its claim to sovereignty when it was re-admitted after the Civil War. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2024-08-04 15:25 |
| #6 Somebody is off his meds again? |
| Posted by: Grom the Reflective 2024-08-04 14:29 |
| #5 Looks like the Burg's resident pious and self-righteous asshole hasn't lost his touch, regardless of what he's calling himself this or next month. Two commenters having a nice discussion on state's rights and along comes Grom The Dickhead with yet another 'Noooo - Americans are really stoopid!' post or comment. You were an aggravating, thoughtless SOB a few years ago and it didn't take all that long for you to revert to form. |
| Posted by: Raj 2024-08-04 14:24 |
| #4 |
| Posted by: Grom the Reflective 2024-08-04 13:00 |
| #3 A different perspective as well. Other than the original 13 states, iirc only Texas and Hawaii entered as separate sovereign territories. All others were derived from federal territory. Those original 13 states gave up a priori claims to what was known as the Northwest Territory and gave it to the pre-Constitutional government to administer. Treaties between the national government and foreign claimants brought in the rest of the lands to the American domain. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2024-08-04 10:33 |
| #2 Contrarian view: The United States is MY country. I'm not giving up any part of it. If the gov't and/or governance doesn't meet my standards I'll change it as the Declaration of Independence has indicated. |
| Posted by: Mercutio 2024-08-04 09:26 |
| #1 If you read the base constitution it is a contract of union among 13 sovereign states. The amending process allows to alter that union. When 3/4ths of the smaller states are fed up with being run by a dozen major metro areas, they can call for a convention and a amendment to dissolve it. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2024-08-04 08:35 |